By The Daily Journalist.
On December 11, the US Congress passed the Support Ukraine Act that Barack Obama signed two days later, under which the US would provide $USD 350 million in arms to the Government of Ukraine .
The US government, however, added that it would not implement the willingness to give peace a chance. But last Saturday, negotiations between the pro-Russian separatists, the Ukrainian government and Russia collapsed. And the United States has decided that perhaps is time to implement a plan to surrender weapons to the country.
So believes the Secretary of State, John Kerry, who will visit Kiev after tomorrow, the Chief of Staff, General John Dempsey, and Secretary of Defense functions, Chuck Hagel will also be present. The key, however, is not in them, but in the national security adviser, Susan Rice, who will have more influence over Obama and so far has opposed giving weapons to Kiev. However that may be changing position as reported yesterday ‘by The New York Times.
The publication of the news of The New York Times’ has not been the only ‘chance’ on Kerry pre-trip. Yesterday it was presented in Washington a report that demands the surrender of weapons to Ukraine by 3,000 million (2,660 million) over the next three years.
The authors of that study are more than just experts. These include, for example, Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense with Obama and Pentagon chief candidate if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2017; Jim Stavridis, commander of NATO to less than two years; Ivo Daalder, Obama’s former ambassador to NATO; and Steve Pifer, advisor to Bill Clinton for the former USSR and former ambassador to Ukraine.
The paper was presented at the think tank Atlantic Council, an organization created by Democrats and Republicans in 1961 to generate support for NATO between civil society and with the collaboration of the former Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar. It was in part presented by Brookings Institution, the ‘think tank’ of the ‘hawks left’, ie the Democratic supporters to intervene in other countries, which has on its roster of experts the former secretary general of NATO, Javier Solana.
And if there was any doubt about the tone of the study, one of its authors, former advisor Bil Clinton Strobe Talbott, began the presentation by stating that “the way to define what is happening in Ukraine is an act of war imposed by the Russian Federation. it is a direct invasion of Russia (…) and a massive occupation of the territory, which goes far beyond Crimea. ”
Antitank weapons and drones
The reports suggests what weapons Kiev’s requires to defend itself, which are exactly the same as those included in the Law on Support to Ukraine. These include anti-tank and anti-armor vehicles to replace those with Ukrainian forces, which have 20 years old weapons; ammunition and small arms; radar to identify and reach artillery batteries; fire control systems and target identification; systems to interfere the UAV drones- -Aircraft being used by pro-Russian; control equipment and weapons guidance; drones; and communications equipment.
So far, the US has officially limited to delivering ‘non-lethal’ systems to Ukraine as night vision equipment and communications networks to help a country whose armed forces had, in the early stages of the war use mobile phones to communicate with each other. In fact, US weapons can not be integrated into the defense systems of Ukraine, in part because they are too sophisticated and partly because this country has an inherited defense of the Soviet Union. That would require Washington to purchase from Central European countries former Warsaw Pact computer and transfer it to Kiev.
